another thing about the 4 landmark supreme court decisions in the 1960's?

Question

so i need a summary of (3-4 sentences) each of the cases right here,
Griswold vs Connecticut
Reynolds vs Sims
Miranda vs Arizona
Gideon vs Wainwright

to me this is very confusing because when i looked it up, i had no clue what each case meant. There were many big terms that i didnt understand. So, can anyone sumarise it up for me?

Answer 1

These are involved cases, but they can be broken down to be fairly simple. For brevity I am not going to get into my opinion of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. I have a conservative judicial philosophy and would not agree with parts of them, but that is not the point.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) declared a right to privacy from the Bill of Rights. The case itself was a test of a Connecticut law that limited the use of contraceptives. But it is more important as being used as the one of the main cases for Roe v. Wade, which gave women more abortion rights.

Reynolds v. Sims (1964) required that both houses of the state legislature be based on population, and not geography. This extended Baker v. Carr (1962) "one man, one vote" to the legislatuare. The assembly could not, for example, apportion the state house or senate on the basis of counties. Each district had to have close to the same numbers of voters. Curiously, our United States does not follow this law in that each state has two senators (California or Vermont). Justice Willliam Brennan ruled that this arrangement in the Federal Constitution was not binding, because it was "The Great Compromise."

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that police must inform a suspect of his right to remain silent, before questioning him. The Court instructed the famous following phrase, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you in a court of law..."

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) concluded from the Bill of Rights and Sixth Amendment that any suspect has the right to have an attorney, and to have counsel provided by the State, if the accused lacks the funds for one.

Answer 2

Miranda vs. Arizona is where we get the arrest warnings from ("You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you do not know, or can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the court.") A man with the last name Miranda had been arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. The arresting officers failed to inform him of his right to remain silent, and denied his access to a lawyer (both rights in the constitution). He confessed. His confession was used against him in court, and he was convicted. Because he was not informed of his right to remain silent, and denied his right to legal counsel, the US Supreme Court overturned his conviction, and issued an order to police departments that they give a suspect the warning I quoted above before questioning them.

In another case, a few years earlier, called "Escombedo v. Illinois", the supreme court ruled that police must inform a suspect of their right to counsel. In this case, it was ruled that if this was violated, the statements from a suspect could not be used as evidence. The police also failed to inform the suspect in Escombedo vs. Ill of his right to remain silent.

These two cases have several links between them - you might consider researching both of them together.

Answer 3

Here's 4 more 1.) Mapp v. State of Ohio (1961)- ruled against unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. 2.) Engel v. Vitale (1962)- ruled that schools cannot have official prayer. 3.) Miranda v. Arizona (1966)- ruled that persons arrested must be informed of their legal rights. 4.) Abington School District v. Schempp (1063)- ruled that mandatory Bible readings in public schools was unconstitutional.